RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS

STETSON UNIVERSITY

Monitoring news media reports about religion in Russia
and other
countries of CIS
Copyrighted material. For private use only.
If you quote material, please credit the publication from which it
came. It is not necessary to credit this Web page for any print use of
the material.
If any electronic reproduction is made, please
acknowledge
the URL: http:www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/

Priest's suicide exposes problems in Orthodox
church

VIATKA PASSIONS
Why one should not be surprised that the infrastructure for effective
church managers remains a much more important goal than the person
By Svetlana Solodovnik
Ezhednevnyi zhurnal, 14 June 2011

The former rector of the Dormition cathedral of Trifonov monastery,
Archpriest Peter Shak, was buried at the end of last week as a layman
after a civil funeral in the Tsiolkovskii House of Culture of Kirov,
without a church funeral and "proper honors." Father Peter died at his
own hand; this was finally established by expert analysis. Thousands of
people from Kirov came to bid him farewell. The foyer of the House of
Culture, the square in front of it, and the sidewalk of adjoining
October Prospect were filled to capacity.

Father Peter occupied the position of rector of the Holy Dormition
cathedral of Trifonov monastery from 1992. In April 2011 the new
archbishop of Viatka and Slobodskoi, Mark, removed him from his
ministry in that capacity, after which Fr Peter was hospitalized. No
wonder. After his dismissal the priest suffered a heart attack and lay
in intensive care for a long time. And then he hanged himself. The
patriarchate sent a commission to Kirov to investigate. But it was
already clear that the new archbishop had triumphantly "hit" all the
major churches of the city, removing from work the old worthy priests
and setting in their places "his own." In an interview with
GTRK-Viatka, he frankly said that any person prefers to surround
himself with "those people with whom he will be able to work more
fruitfully. . . . This is a normal process. When there is understanding
of one or another question, it is decided more quickly."

"His own" priests, possibly, are no less worthy than the old Viatka
priests, but it is rather difficult to believe that all the dismissed
priests were implicated "in serious financial and economic violations
and sometimes crimes" (Archbishop Mark's words from the same
interview). Or else one must admit that the Russian church is a band of
thieves.

The main word there is "serious;" petty violations exist in practically
all churches where by tradition there exist "black cashboxes," which
help to supplement a little bit the official (i.e. taxable) wages of
church workers—choir conductors, singers, cooks, Sunday school
teachers, etc. Of course, if Archbishop Mark decided to fight for
complete transparency of the church budget, then such commitment to
principle could only be welcomed. But I somewhat doubt that the Vladyka
is ready to be guided by those principles in his own administration of
the diocese. In every case we have not yet seen a complete financial
accountability of the Viatka see. So that the intentions appear more
corrupt and bureaucratic: it is easier and faster to decide questions
with "his own." Lo the splinters fly.

To add to the shame, Fr Peter was asked to evacuate the diocesan
apartment where he lived with his wife and two sons (the embezzler
priest did not have his own residence). It has been stated in blogs
that those who arrived with the sad news asked him to pay them each one
million rubles for every year of residence in the manse. They also
write that the results of the work of Archbishop Mark's new team have
already hit hard the life of the city: the prices for baptisms and
funerals, prayers and requiems have been raised. Previously a babushka
could get a prayer for a soul's repose for 10 to 15 rubles, but the new
"tariff" is 100! "What a shock!" the blogger said in horror.

The Orthodox community is outraged and indignant, but after all the
"trend" was indicated long ago, back when the Moscow patriarchate took
the course of schism in the Surozh diocese, also to a very great extent
from mercantile considerations: in the struggle for the church building
purchased once by the émigré community with money
collected literally from their last efforts. The emigrants of the "new
wave" were dissatisfied by the procedures in the diocese (women came
without head scarves, they prayed for non-Orthodox persons, and the
priests were improper), and they never thought that they could collect
money in the same way (and among them are some extremely wealthy
people) and build (or buy) their own building. Why pay or build if it
is possible to seize? After all the Surozh diocese is a member of the
Moscow patriarchate, and that means the building belongs to the Moscow
patriarchate. And they seized it. And the "old ones" who are not
prepared to be reconciled to such injustice now roam about other
churches, where they are given a corner and the possibility of
conducting services in line along with local parishes.

Or the St. Nicholas cathedral in Nice, for which Russia sued for
several years the Orthodox Association of Nice. The cathedral was build
by Emperor Nicholas II on land purchased by the imperial cabinet and it
was nationalized after the revolution. This, properly, gave Russia the
right to claim the cathedral. But since the 1920s the cathedral was
owned and fully maintained (again on modest emigrant money) by the
Orthodox Association of Nice, which is within the jurisdiction of the
archdiocese of Orthodox Russian churches in western Europe of the
Constantinople patriarchate. The free lease expired 31 December 2007
and through the court Russia recovered what they considered their own
property (The Orthodox Association, however, intends to file an
appeal). Now the government intends to transfer the church to the
Russian Orthodox Church and it is not known how the fate of the parish
and its priests will come out.

Many Orthodox persons approve the expression "their own property,"
without taking into account the feelings and considerations of the
people without whom this "their own property" simply would not exist.
In the first case, the emigrant community bought the building; in the
second, it maintained it in working condition for 80 years without the
least help from Russia, and how would they know what would happen with
the cathedral when they did not have a lease? But in both instances,
infrastructural interests trumped the human consideration.

Or take the scandals involving "property of religious significance" in
Russia itself, when museums, if they are not thrown out of church
buildings onto the street, are shoved into attics and basements, and
monasteries evict from "seized territories" persons who have lived
there all their lives. So why would we now not be surprised that
the infrastructure for effective church managers remains a much more
important goal than the person? (tr. by PDS, posted 14 June 2011)

Residents of two villages of Kirov province, parishioners of the
Nikolai church located in Rudnichnyi, have expressed disagreement with
the new economic policy of the new Viatka bishop of RPTsMP. In May and
June, meetings of residents were held, at which the decision was made
to write an appeal to Archbishop of Viatka and Slobodskoi Mark, and
then was begun the collection of signatures under the appeal, "Viatskii
nabliudatel" reported 14 June.

"We consider that those rates for rituals and candles which have been
imposed on our St. Nikolai parish by the leadership of Viatka diocese
have been set without taking into account the purchasing capacity of
the population, and thus they are extremely unrealistic, and they
prevent us from fulfilling our religious needs. Thus the meeting of
residents of the villages of Rudnichnyi and Lesnoi resolves:

1. The rates previously accepted by St. Nikolai parish we
consider acceptable.

2. The rates set by the diocese, we consider inoperable since
they are not consistent with the real incomes of the population.

3. All auditing and monitoring actions on the part of the
diocese, conducted without the oversight on the part of members of the
parish meeting and also without representatives of the meetings of
residents of the villages of Rudnichnyi and Lesnoi, we consider invalid.

4. All diocesan directives respecting the St. Nokolai parish will
be certified by a public commission delegated by the people's meetings
and representatives of organs of local administration (local dumas) and
the regional duma, which may be attended by representatives of the
Russian lay community and news media.

5. The activity of the priest Archpriest Leonid Safronov we
consider to be satisfactory."

The outrage of the parishioners of St. Nikolai church is based on the
fact that recently the leadership of the Viatka diocese of RPTsMP
issued an order in accordance with which identical rates for church
rituals and candles would apply in all parishes. As a result, the cost
of candles and rituals immediately increased by several times.

Igor Gaslov, a "patriarchal blogger," wrote in his journal about the
systematic character of suicides by priests, monks, and students in
ecclesiastical schools of RPTsMP, that are evoked by an unfair decision
of a bishop. He devoted a whole series of messages in his blog to
Bishop of Syktyvkarsk and Vorkutinskoe Pitirim.

According to Gaslov's account, who is known for his being close to
Chisty Lane, Bishop Pitirim drove to suicide Hegumen Iona, who had
restored the church in the village of Ust-Kulom, but was not able to
cope with the financial problems since he received no support from the
diocese. In addition, according to Gaslov's report, Bishop Pitirim
threated the wife of one of his priests with death by suicide.

From the "patriarchal blogger's" post, Bishop Pitirim began being
called in other blogs "Bishop of Suicides." However, other Internet
users suggest that Igor Gaslov is serving the interests of one of the
parties within RPTsMP and is spreading compromising information about
representatives of the competing clan. Bishop Pitirim is known as the
bishop who is most loyal to corporate interests in RPTsMP. He has
frequently openly criticized ecumenism and has blessed various
patriotic events.

In yet another version, bloggers are connecting the spread of
compromising against Bishop Pitirim with an attempt to deflect
attention from another bishop of RPTsMP, Archbishop Mark, whom they
directly or indirectly accuse of driving one of the priests of his
diocese, Archpriest Peter Shak, to suicide.

At the time of the patriarchal election campaign in 2008-2009,
Archdeacon Andrei Kuraev posted in his blog ("living journal") at least
three cases of students of the Tobolsk Ecclesiastical Seminary being
driven to suicide. From various dioceses of RPTsMP, reports continue to
arrive that there have been incidents there of suicides by priests
which are carefully covered up and presented to the public as either
the result of criminal attacks or death from natural causes. (tr. by
PDS, posted 14 June 2011)

Two photographs containing allusions to the "nontraditional sexual
orientation" of the leadership of the Syktyvkarsk and Vorkutinsk
diocese of RPTsMP were posted in his blog on 13 June by Professor
Archdeacon Andrei Kuraev of the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, who is
known for his closeness to Patriarch Kirill.

The first photograph shows a banner on which is inscribed:
"Children visiting Bishop Pitirim. Syktyvkarsk and Vorkutinsk diocese
of RPTsMP." The background of the banner shows the colors of the
rainbow, which representatives of sexual minorities consider to be
their symbol. The second photograph shows Bishop of Syktyvkarsk
and Vorkutinsk Pitirim near a crucifix which is decorated with ribbons
recalling a rainbow. Near the head of the bishop is a yellow
semicircular object similar to a halo.

Archdeacon Andrei presents these innocent photographs with the headline
"Komi Rainbow." In the same report, Archdeacon Andrei gives a link to
the journal of "patriarchal blogger" Igor Gaslov, with a collection of
links to material compromising Bishop Pitirim.

Deacon Andrei Kuraev began occupying himself with spreading
compromising material against bishops of RPTsMP in December 2008, on
the eve of elections of a new patriarch. At the time Fr Andrei
aggressively attacked Metropolitan Kliment, one of the major
competitors of Kirill in the struggle for the patriarchal throne. Fr
Andrei accused Metropolitan Kliment of plagiarism, violation of
election procedures, and he made a number of unpleasant insinuations
against him.

After his victory in the election, Patriarch Kirill elevated Fr Andrei
to the position of archdeacon, investing him with a double orarion and
a red kamelaukion.

The current attack by Archdeacon Andrei against Bishop Pitirim may be
evidence of the elevation to the "very highest level" of the intention
to discredit the RPTsMP hierarch who is the most loyal to corporate
interests. Bishop Pitirim is famous for his open criticism of ecumenism
and support of patriotic organization. In addition, he already has
appeared at the center of several church scandals can be called
"moral." (tr. by PDS, posted 14 June 2011)

A new Russian Bible

On 1 June a new translation of the Old Testament into Russian came out
in the publishing house of the Russian Bible Society (RBO). Over the
course of the past 15 years, RBO has been engaged in the preparation of
this text, but the long awaited event was overshadowed by an uproar:
the group of authors who worked on the translation quit the Bible
society, suddenly coming out against the publication of the "New
Russian Bible."

The uproar, which culminated in a schism and the departure from the
administration of the Russian Bible Society of the greater part of its
founding fathers—and principally Archpriest Alexander Borisov, rector
of the church of Saints Kosma and Damian in Shubin, president of RBO
since 1991—was the consequence of a conflict between the executive
director of the society and the group of translators, working on the
new translation of the Old Testament under the leadership of the famous
philologist and leading research associate of the Institute of Eastern
Culture of the Russian State Humanities University, Mikhail Seleznev.

The new Russian Bible is a Russian translation of the Old Testament,
intended to replace the prerevolutionary synodal version, which has
been published in the course of the past several years in stages, as
small leaflets. By the summer of 2010, this text was in the main ready
for a final edition, with the exception of formal procedures of consent
in consultation with the United Bible Societies. Unexpectedly, about a
year ago, the head of the Old Testament translation group, Mikhail
Seleznev, suggested that the production be halted. One of the reasons
for this was the decision by the leadership of RBO to publish along
with the new text under a single cover the "outrageous" New Testament
translation of Valentina Kuznetsova, which came out in RBO as a
separate volume in the middle of the 1990s, known to the Russian reader
under the title "Joyous News." Just after its first publication it
evoked a wave of criticism. "When you get acquainted with such texts,
sometimes the feeling grows that you are not reading sacred scripture
but are attending the commotion in the kitchen of a communal
apartment," wrote in his open letter to the translator Metropolitan
(then Hieromonk) Ilarion, a prominent theologian and now the chairman
of the Department for External Church Relations of RPTs. "In such a
'translation' there is a deliberate and consistent profaning of the
sacred text, which is being shifted into a marketplace, bazaar, and
kitchen language," he writes in his book "Orthodoxy," that appeared
recently in the publishing house of the Presentation monastery. "The
words 'idiot,' 'to crow,' 'scheme,' 'went nuts,' 'smart cookie,'
and 'whore' do not correspond to either the spirit or letter of the
sacred text, which requires a more reverent attitude. When the
imprecision of the translation is magnified into a conscious attempt to
debase the style, along with the author's weak command of Russian
literary style, the result turns out to be altogether deplorable: 'Such
are the kind of people who worm their way into homes and captivate
silly floozies. These women have a heap of sins and a mass of desires.
. . . And rogues and swindlers will go even farther—out of the frying
pan into the fire—and lead astray both others and themselves' (2 Tim.
3, 6.13, in Kuznetsova's translation). In the Greek original there is
no 'heap of sins' and 'mass of desires,' but 'women, laden by sins and
led by various lusts.' There is no such 'out of the frying pan into the
fire' in the Greek text even by allusion; the translator made up this
expression herself."

The publication of the Old Testament translation under the same cover
as such an ambiguous text could, to a certain extent, compromise it,
especially under the pretentious name of the "New Russian Bible" that
the publisher intended to use. Foreseeing the negative reaction of a
substantial portion of the Orthodox community, Mikhail Seleznev
suggested to delay the release of the combined edition and to translate
the New Testament anew.

"Seleznev's Old Testament translation is measured and precise and is
very different from Kuznetsova's translation, which was created for
opposite purposes," says Archpriest Leonid Grilikhex,, who heads the
department of biblical studies of the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy and
is one of the prominent specialists in the area of sacred scripture in
our country. "The goal of 'Joyous News,' is to bring the text of the
Bible to the contemporary reader, in principle; in the West there has
long been a tradition of Bible translations that provide the reader a
certain adaptation of the text. The translation of Seleznev and his
group has a different goal; it is continuing the tradition of
'scholarly' translation, like the so-called Jerusalem Bible in the
West." One can hardly call the publication of two such different kinds
of text under the same cover a good idea, Fr Leonid thinks.

"On my part, to criticize the work of a colleague would be quite
incorrect," Mikhail Seleznev himself explained. "Especially since the
experience of Valentina Kuznetsova's translations is that of a
trailblazer, and we should be thankful to her for this. That
translation was created at the end of the soviet era, and its has the
imprint of the rebellious and dissident mood of the 1980s. 'Joyous
News' is the product of a brave translation experiment. The translator
intended to get as far away from the customary official translation of
sacred scripture. In its time, acquaintance with Valentina Kuznetsova's
New Testament translations made a very strong impression on me—it was a
shock, but the shock of opening some new horizons of translation
freedom: 'Can one really translate the Bible like that?' When new
horizons are opened, you certainly must not go to extremes. But the
space in which you live and work has become somehow wider."

Who will answer for the future of biblical scholarship? "I agreed to
the publication of the translation of the Old Testament along with
Kuznetsova's 'Joyous News' reluctantly. These are two very different
texts stylistically," acknowledged the already former president of the
Russian Bible Society, Archpriest Alexander Borisov. "Mikhail Seleznev
asked to extend the time for working on the text, and I acted on this
initiative on 2 June 2010. But to my amazement that evoked a very
stormy and negative reaction from the executive director, Rudenko. In
the course of the conflict he aggressively amassed supporters,
conducted agitation among them, so that in the autumn at the general
meeting, out of 70 participants our point of view was supported by only
20. In the end, I left the position of president of the Russian Bible
Society, and the executive director effectively usurped power in RBO."
Along with Father Alexander, a whole number of its founders,
representatives of various Russian Christian communities, left the
administration.

In the debates roiling RBO in the course of a whole year, to the
discussion about timing has been added a dispute about the goals of the
existence of the Bible society. To a great extent the "schism," Mikhail
Seleznev thinks, has been produced by these contradictions in
worldviews. "I consider it proper that RBO be an organization that,
along with publishing activity, is engaged in the activity of
enlightenment and scholarly research," he says. "Indeed, in the
majority of countries, Bible societies are engaged exclusively in
publishing and distributing the bibles, while the scholarly research
activity in the area of biblical studies is supported by academic
foundations or universities. But there are exceptions. For example, the
German Bible Society undertakes to publish critical scholarly texts of
sacred scripture in the languages of the original and it supports
textual investigation in the area of biblical studies." Executive
Director Rudenko and his supporters expressed opposing positions.

"Continuation of work on scholarly biblical translations and
commentaries on the Bible after RBO has completed this work is a most
important question which faces us today," Mikhail Seleznev
concludes. "Neither in the church nor in the academic world do
there simply exist institutions dealing with the translation of the
Bible into Russian. Now the fate of biblical studies is in our hands
and not in the hands of the administrators of RBO, and it has become
necessary for us to answer for it in the future." For now the
working group of RBO translators is seeking forms in which their team
will be able to continue to exist further, but prospects of such
existence are cloudy.

"That a new translation of the Old Testament is simply necessary—this
is a generally recognized fact. The synodal translation is antiquated
and even originally it had great shortcomings," Archpriest Leonid
Grilikhez agreed. "In this regard, the experience of Seleznev and the
group of translators who worked with him is valuable. However a church
translation can be born only within the bosom of the church and it
cannot be the work of any one group of translators. Here would be
appropriate the method that was used in creating the synodal
translation in the 19th century: with a unity of principles, the
translation itself was produced by specialists of all four
ecclesiastical academies; they checked up on one another and discussed.
The Holy Synod officially reviewed and approved their texts. But now
the church, unfortunately, is really not engaged in its own translation
projects and when such project might begin is difficult to say."

On 1 June 2011, both translations under a single cover were
nevertheless published by the Bible society. According to employees in
the RBO store, the old editions of the "Seleznev" text will soon
disappear from the shelves, and it will be possible to acquire this
translation of the Old Testament only along with "Joyous News." At the
present time, Mikhail Seleznev is head of the department of biblical
studies in the General Church Graduate School; it is possible he will
continue his translation work here. It is interesting that this year
the graduate school began training master's degree candidates in
"biblical studies" for the first time, whose competence would, in
essence, include the translation of sacred scripture.

We recall that RBO is the largest publisher of biblical literature in
Russia and is an inter-confessional public association that has the
goal of publishing and distributing the text of sacred scripture.
Its membership includes Orthodox, Catholics, protestants, translators,
academic scholars, and public figures, with equal rights in its board.
However, the operative administration of the society is conducted not
by the board but by the executive director. RBO is a member of the
worldwide network of Bible societies, coordinated by the United Bible
Society. Each of the affiliates maintains in practice complete autonomy
and freedom of independent decision making, within the framework of
common conceptions. (tr. by PDS, posted 13 June 2011)